I think that you're talking about that president before Obama. The one who got us into war and a recession.

I'm not that happy with Obama, but I hardly think that he's the worst president this country ever had. I definitely think that he's trying to make things better. You can't blame everything on the president. Though I do think that he's still in Wall Street's pocket, just like the presidents before him.

He is trying to make things better by doing things that history has proven do not work. He is enacting socialist principles and building a "take care of me" state that discourages people from having any sense of self-responsibility.

Sure, he may think what he is doing will make things better, but all we have to do is look at every other socialist regime in the history of the world to see that it does not work.

He ordered the B-52s to fly over the Senkakus, didn't he?I like what he's done, generally. I'll vote for the Democratic candidate for President in the next election, presumably Jerry Brown, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry.

Obama has done some things I don't like but, overall, has been a good President.

Regardless of whether the anti-affordable care act folks agree, healthcare reform was major and overdue.

He started this change in an extremely obstructive and uncooperative environment but despite all the squabbles about the website, etc. now, the big picture will show this as a major turning point for the American healthcare system once all the dust settles and details are refined.

The thing I dislike most about Obama is his eavesdropping on American citizens and the callous way he dismissed the NSA scandal as if it were nothing.

But, I'm not convinced any other high profile Ameican politician would not have done the same thing.

The technology is there an it's too tempting for politicians to resist until public outrage knocks them back to their senses.

By what's the alternative?

A president McCain or Willard Romney would have entered us into war with Iran.

If you think the country is bad off now, can you imagine another foreign war?

Of the faces visible in that photo, none of them appears pleased to be there.

Personally I don't like most of his economic policy. I am hopeful the continued sanctions and diplomacy tactic with Iran will pay off but it is too soon to tell. It also seems like he was unable to deliver on a few of his campaign promises like Gitmo.

My big beef with him is his insistence that we further subsidize those who are not pulling their weight. It is unconscionable to buy votes with other people’s money.

Avoiding war with Iran may yet turn out to be Obama's biggest accomplishment. It's hard to square the 2007 version of Obama with the 2013 version. The nation was desperate for an intelligent president; he said all the right things. He won in 2008 then proceeded to let special interests and campaign politics change him into what he is today. Neither he nor any other politician can give a satisfactory answer as to why they weren't smart enough to divert the NSA's computer resources to Healthcare.gov. I hope that eavesdropping on the world's conversations was worth losing the faith of their actual constituents.

Social welfare is necessary. Do you live in a gated community? The neighborhood I live in is very not bad, but it's not gated. I don't want crime rates to shoot through the roof or to endure the police's paramilitary tactics. How insulated are you that you basically make "kill the poor" arguments?!?!

"The sun beams down on a brand new day / No more welfare tax to pay / Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light / Jobless millions whisked away / At last we have more room to play / All systems go to kill the poor tonight"

DLR, I do not live an insular life in a gated community nor am I making 'kill the poor' arguments. I am making arguments against subsidizing them. Do you believe it is possible to end poverty by subsidy?

Are you making welfare state arguments? Should I read your commentary as advocating the extremes of class warfare?

Obama NEVER claimed to be a "fiscal conservative" when he was running for president. The spending and debt incurred by Bush II, mostly his unjustified and immoral wars, will be into the next generation.

Glad to see you oppose the warmongering, CA Offender. Mmmaybe you are turning over a new leaf??? I was outraged at his flip-flopping over the Honduran coup--even after it was condemned by the OAS. It was also ironic watching the hypocritical criticism of Obama's joing NATO in the Libyan intervention by Sean Inanity and Faux News when all along, their man, McShame, wanted boots on the ground and would have gotten them from Congress had he been president instead. On immigration, Obama has taken up the usual passive-aggressive position of his predecessors. Overall, he has been inconsistent in foreign policy. But like one of the other posters wrote, avoided war with Iran may well be one of his accomplishments.

The first female United States Ambassador dispatched to Tokyo enjoys a close relationship with President Barack Obama, having co-chaired the President's successful 2012 re-election bid. Ambassador Kennedy also cherishes a friendship with Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Massachusetts Senator who knows her from her childhood. The 55-year-old envoy, an ex-attorney said that she feels proud to “carry forward my father’s legacy of public service. This appointment has a special significance as we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of my father’s Presidency ... ... I am conscious of my responsibility to uphold the ideals he represented — a deep commitment to public service, a more just America and a more peaceful world. As a World War II veteran who served in the Pacific, my father had hoped to be the first sitting President to make a state visit to Japan." Our two countries, said Ms. Kennedy, "are bound by deep political, economic, cultural and strategic ties, and our partnership has a global reach. We share a commitment to freedom, human rights, and the rule of law. Japan is the world’s third largest economy, our fourth largest trading partner, and the second largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States. Also, Japan is home to 50,000 U.S. troops, the 7th Fleet, and 170,000 American citizens. As the United States rebalances toward Asia, our alliance with Japan remains the cornerstone of peace, stability, and prosperity in the region, as it has been for more than 50 years." Dialogue following Ms. Kennedy's statement at her September hearing~ SEN. ROBERT MENDEZ (D-NEW JERSEY): I think the Abe government is in the midst of a defense policy review that will yield a new national defense policy program set of guidelines. It may very well reinterpret their Constitution to exercise the right of collective Self-Defense. ... [indeed, it has] ... That means you have a U.S. ship and a Japanese ship side-by-side, if there were a strike on the U.S. ship, the Japanese ship would be in a position to respond, rather than just watch. That’s important to our national security interests in the region as well as our efforts in changing our base status in Okinawa." SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-ARIZONA): It’s necessary to reemphasize a couple of points. One is that tensions between Japan and China are higher than at any time since the end of World War II. The issue of the Senkakus islands, although unknown to most Americans, is very high on the agenda of both Japan and China. There have been incidents of significant tension in that region, and there has been movement of Chinese ships there and a military presence. Do you share my concern about this situation? MS. KENNEDY: It’s a matter of grave concern.

Thompsonrichard thank you for the summary, I have been following the situation between china, japan, vietnam, and others with interests in the area, as well as the recent talk in japan of reorganizing their defense force into an actual military force. China's actions appear to be worrying, but I believe they are mostly a distraction for the world and meant to bolster national pride following the global humiliation caused by the unusually public bo xi lai/gu kai lai scandal among others over the last few years. The biggest threat to china is a civil uprising, and the more scandals that come to light the closer the population scoots to the brink. They have used the senkaku islands in the past for the purpose of bolstering national pride in the past, and this posturing is probably just more of the same.

More than anything else, I try to appeal to your logic. Social welfare is necessary in our society because, by definition, capitalism produces winners and losers. The losers cannot be eradicated. Mechanisms must be in place to ensure the poor and disadvantaged have subsistence lifestyles at the very least. Otherwise, crime increases and slums rise. During my travels I've seen some of the most decadent places on the planet. I guarantee you many Americans wouldn't have the stomach to see those places.

DLR, I agree with most of your premise, but not your conclusion. The losers do not need to be actively eradicated to reduce their numbers, they only need to be left to their own devices. I do believe that in the short term you may see an increase in crime relative to our current levels, but that will be temporary and (importantly) our current level is artificially high precisely because of our subsidy of idle persons. Continuation of the subsidy exacerbates the problem. I'm not sure what city you are referring to as decadent, but I suspect the residents of Las Vegas would be able to aclimate fairly well. As far as places go that we do not have the stomach to see, the ones overpopulated with slums fall fairly high on the list. Creating more of them close to home is not a good goal.

For your information, "decadence" has another inherent characteristic when applied to societies instead of individuals. A decadent society is one where the economic elites literally wall themselves off from the rest of society and ignore the pain and suffering of those outside those walls. The example you're probably familiar with is France before the French Revolution.

That said, your idea is outrageous and immoral. I am not willing to accept the needless pain and suffering of our fellow Americans just because people like you live insular lives. The cherry on top would be if you called yourself a Christian, which you surely are not. (I hope you're not a hypocrite on top of being an Ayn Rand wannabe.) I know a guy who used to spout off about "bottomfeeders" and the like. His reward was having a daughter born with Down Syndrome then losing his job and home. Let's just say he's had a significant attitude adjustment.

DLR, my ideas are certainly more moral than those that advocate increasing a population entirely dependent on the work of others, especially when those so depended upon have decreasing control over the amount of support required, the method by which it is extracted and the uses to which it is put.

You are not willing to accept someone else suffering and will force me to suffer to aid them? That seems an odd position to take, especially when one is making moral claims.

Your ideas more moral than mine? My tax bill is high by anyone's standards and I contribute generously to different secular charities. You don't know what you're talking about. You're selfish and you should view the full content of the links you posted before weakly attempting to correct me. Enjoying yourself while others are suffering within view is decadent, Longfellow.

Had you more friends and worldly experience, you might not be so INDIFFERENT to society. Patrolling the streets of Afghanistan or Iraq on a fool's errand doesn't quite qualify as worldly experience. You're not as sophisticated and hard to figure out as you think.

I'm sorry, are you saying that you are using a poet's description as a definition of a word? That seems to be an odd way to define terms.

Yes, my ideas are certainly moral. They do not advocate coercion or theft and treat all persons equally. Perhaps you have some other idea of a basis for morality that you would care to explain.

I have exactly as many friends as I require and the more I experience the world the less I care to interfere with it. Do you find your experiences differ? Also, I have never been to Afghanistan and what concept of worldliness are you using to dismiss my experience in Baghdad? Do you think we are so different from them? Do you have something positive to offer rather than name-calling?

OK, I am not sophisticated, though I have never claimed to be; I am certainly easy to figure out. Be honest, don't fight unless you must, don't be a mooch. It isn't hard.

Can we work to understand each other's basis for conclusion or should we just insult each other? I've asked several questions that you have not answered. Will you reply?

"Obama NEVER claimed to be a "fiscal conservative" when he was running for president. The spending and debt incurred by Bush II, mostly his unjustified and immoral wars, will be into the next generation. "

According to John Markkk, this is a "wild" rant. I'd hate to see what he calls a truly wild rant.

Unlike Arabs and Jews, Jews and Persians/Iranians do not have generations of animosity. The current conflict has been manipulated by Ahmadinijad and his supporters as well as the current regime. As for Israel, if they strike at Iran, that will damage their influence within Iraqi borders, which we helped set up to begin with.

Let them eat whatever they care to with what they earn, the same as everybody else. If you like white mousse cakes then please enjoy some, at your own expense. The Longfellow quote (for which a quick search does not reveal the source, which work is that from?) isn't uncomfortable, but it isn't particularly relevant either. Poetry is not the most effective way to define terminology in a debate. I prefer the Wordsworth quote “And homeless near a thousand homes I stood, And near a thousand tables pined and wanted food.” for conveying that emotional argument but it is still only that, an emotional one.

JeanMarc~ "[CCP] used the Senkaku Islands in the past for the purpose of bolstering national pride in the past." In March 1996, as Taiwan was engaged in its first popular presidential campaign, the People's Liberation Army fired missiles OVER Formosa & INTO Okinawa Prefecture waters (prompting the United States to dispatch two aircraft carrier battle-groups). Beijing has exploited the rivalry between the KMT (formerly from the mainland) and the DPP. To some KMT leaders, who lost the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, the DPP is their principal enemy and the CCP merely a nuisance.

When I taught import-export managers at Hsin Chu, Taiwan I assigned the topic: Should the Dali Lama return from his self-imposed exile in India? (I sent the best to him). Without exception, my 28 to 35 year-old students said yes although that would have meant "a fate worse than death."

Another trigger of the current crisis is the ballooning Japanese government debt. The yuan recently overtook the euro as the second-most used currency in international trade finance. Japan enjoys a healthy 9% share of global gross domestic product -- but it also accounts for a whopping 19% share of global government debt. Assuming Barack Obama wants the dollar to remain the reserve currency -- as China prices more of its exports in yuan -- and as emerging markets rise well beyond the current 34% of Global GDP -- he may have to deign China Sovereign of the Islands of the Wide, Wide Sea.

I've always been opposed to war being used as diplomatic leverage and warmongering in general (which the US is the world's leading expert at). So there is no leaf to turn over.

But I disagree that Obama has somehow avoided war with Iran. We were not headed towards war with Iran to begin with. As much as McCain and the other hawk nutballs wished for it, the threat of war is fabricated. Iran knows it would end up a wasteland like Iraq and Afghanistan if it goes to war. There is no real threat unless the US cooks one up for a false casus belli.

People like Obama should be given ZERO credit for avoiding conflicts that are whipped up by the media (and State Department/CIA) but have no basis in reality.

DLR, thank you for the apology. Please accept mine if I have offended you. This board is generally polite but occasionally I find posts slipping over the line into name calling and speaking ‘for’ someone instead of 'to' them. I don’t think those methods help reach understanding or improve the discussion and if you ever see me behave poorly please do call me on it.

Is this a topic we can discuss in a civil manner with the mutual goal of arriving at a common understanding of good long term solutions?

thompsonrichard it is nice to see others who are interested and knowledgeable about geopolitical issues. Not that I am particularly knowledgeable, but I have no qualms claiming I know more than people who go "uhh....." when any issue not concerning beiber or lady caca is mentioned.

You forget Offender, that since the end of the "hostage crisis," we've been ITCHING for a military confrontation. Knocking down one of their civilian airliners on a past July 4 wasn't enough. We wanted all out war, but Iraq provided the greater pretext. And this is under several administrations, not just the Bush II neo-cons. Sy Hersh wrote a great piece not long ago.